Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value beyond them: it states the history is preserved on deactivation, that the action reaches other people, and that confirmation is on by default but toggleable. It still does not describe whether reactivation restores prior access state or anything about the response.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core behavior is stated twice in near-identical wording ('Deactivate a client (they lose app access, history is kept) or reactivate them' followed by a full restatement). This redundancy wastes space and pushes the confirmation and API-key guidance to the back.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the salient behavioral facts (history retention, confirmation default, external reach, auth requirement). It is largely complete, though it could clarify access restoration on reactivation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with an enum for status, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no syntax or value details (e.g., what client_id format beyond the schema note), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb pair (deactivate/reactivate) and resource (client), making the action unambiguous. It does not name any sibling tool for differentiation, but the purpose itself is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It conveys a usage constraint (default confirmation, switchable off; confirm with the user because it reaches other people), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to choose deactivation versus reactivation or how it relates to sibling tools like get_client or add_client_tags.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.